Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description adds useful context: inputs are in centimeters and the supported sizing systems. It doesn't state any preconditions or limitations (e.g. valid measurement ranges), which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and inputs, then the return shape and a cross-reference. No filler; every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter calculation tool, the description covers unit conventions, supported systems and output keys, which is most of what an agent needs. The main gap is routing relative to calculate_bra_size_convert, though the output schema relieves it of explaining return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does specify the measurement unit (cm) and the three accepted system values, which maps to all three required parameters. It adds little about the semantics of the bust/underbust values themselves, but the names are largely self-describing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (calculate bra size) plus scope (FR/US/UK) and inputs (underbust, bust in cm), so the agent knows exactly what it computes. It does not differentiate itself from the close sibling calculate_bra_size_convert, which handles the case where a size already exists, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus calculate_bra_size_convert or the other apparel-size tools. The pointer to list_bundles for 'textile-mode' calculators is a soft cross-reference, not a when-to-use rule or exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.